Eagle94-A1

Yes I remember the days of less paperwork. And I miss them. But I admit to mix emotions on the topic, at least how it's done in my neck of the woods at the district level. I like how it's done and am comfortable with the expectations. In my part of the woods, there are two meeting, one optional. Every year the District Advancement Chairman (DAC) has a meeting for all SMs, Eagle advisers and Life Scouts. The purpose of the meeting is to talk over the entire Life to Eagle process, expectations, etc. It's not mandatory, and the recommendation is that at least 1 representative form each unit goes in order to bring back info. This year it was done at Roundtable. Yes he has a high expectation. He wants the proposal as detailed as possible so that A) potential problems can be avoided (one eagle project was so screwed up that the organization no longer allows Eagle projects, and this is after being beneficiary for over 11 year) and B) if something was to happen to the Life Scout, someone could pick up where he left off to complete the project (apparently this happened once when the DAC was a Scout). District approval meeting takes no more that 60 minutes, at least that is what is alloted. The Life Scout discusses his project in addition to handing over the preliminary work for the committee to review. Questions are asked, advice and recommendations given, and a sample book is shown to show the expectations. If needed, the DAC rehashes the group meeting. If not, the meeting is over and done with. I sat in on 2 project approvals. 1 was less that 10 minutes as that Scout's SM attended the meeting and prepared the Scout. The 2nd approval took a little longer since the Scout did not have anyone working with him. He was in and out in 25-30 minutes. Part of the expectation is why. The rationale for details is again to prevent problems from occurring with prior planning. Also so that if something happens, someone can pick up and complete the project. Another reason is for the Life to get a taste of the real world. The Eagle project is a good learning experience for doing projects as adults. Final reason is to create a project book that the Scouts can look at and be proud of in the years to come. I'll be honest, While I was extremely proud of my project, compared to some of the projects these Scouts are undertaking today, I am a bit embarrassed. Heck even from 15-20 years ago, the projects are much better. One of the things the Advancement Committee use to do was published the Eagle projects in a year book. Some of these projects are a book unto themselves.

Oldest completed the 2 Eagle required MBs and SMC he needed for Life yesterday. At the SMC discovered he taught the wrong first aid skills, but he is working on that. So it looks like he will be up for his Life BOR on the 28th. Also, some of you may have remembered the challenges my troop was having 12-18 months ago. It was bad. The camp out this past weekend was AWESOME! SPL and PLs did their job, and it went very smoothly. With the exception of new parents interfering some, it was flawless in execution. Even with the bad weather we had,back up plans were made by the SPL, and he improvised some when we couldn't do exactly what was planned, but also didn't need to go full blown back up as predicted. Over all a great weekend

3rd Edition SM handbook is EXCELLENT!!!!! I also highlyrecommend it. Just don't lend ithem out. I did to a new SM starting a new troop. Troop folded and I never got my books back.

They also got a bunch of tools used for maintenence as well. The Old Ranger's House (OHR and in one article called a house) was converted into a workshop/storage area. Sadly that's the camp I grew up at, Salmen Scout Reservation's Camp V-Bar.

That is becaus up to1989, there was no such thing as a NSP. From 1972 to 1989 you had mixed aged patrols, aka traditional patrols, and the Leadership Corps of older Scouts. I know that at one time BSA had Explorers in troops for the older guys, but do not know the time frame. So mixed aged patrols are the traditional patrol recommended by National from 1910 to 1989, and many units continue to use traditional patrols after national started recommending NSPs because the traditional patrol works. It's not a matter of ignoring what nationals tells us to do, it is a matter continueing to use an approved patrol type, after all National still allows folks to use mixed aged patrols, in a manner consistent with the Patrol Method. Do you want adults treating a patrol like Cub Scouts stil? I do not. That is why I am a proponent of traditional patrols.

Agree 110%. When I was the "Troop Guide" (I was doing this in 1986 and it was called Patrol Leader at that time) It was extremely challenging trying to get the new Scouts up to speed. Instead of increasing morale, allowing us to focus on their advancement, getting htem better in tune with Scouting etc, there were arguments, no one wanting to listen, and not enough help from older Scouts on the camp outs b/c they were with their patrols. And our SM only interfered once, and that was when I was at my breaking point and the SPL took over my patrol while the SM had a chat with me. I say it was acceptable and needed interference at that point. We did it for a year because we had to, then went back to mix aged patrols. But in that year we lost Scouts due to frustration with the NSP. When I was a NSP ASM, I tried to mentor and advise the TG and PL, and after the fact. But the same exact problems I saw when I was a "TG" were recurring. Everyone brainstormed on how to solve this issue. The only way was going to traditional patrols. And it is working. That statement is what many of us who do not want to go coed fear: National will change the program to accommodate them. And they will. I remember being in school and hearing comments about how schools are focused more for boys than girls. Over time, curriculum have changed to accommodate girls. But it seems that it is overcompensating. Recess, or more specifically unstructured play time is gone in most places. I thought I was reading an Onion article when I read a story about school districts hiring recess organizers to organize a game for everyone to play. In my day organized games was PE. And there are other examples.

The reason Is stated the use of statistics on First Class Scouts for the creation of NSPs is because that is what national used to justify creating the NSP model. The more I think about it, more I realize LDS units must have influenced its creation since their stats would skew traditional patrols since the y keep all the 11 years olds separate. In fact if you think about it, they are aged based, i.e. 11 years olds separate from the rest of the troop; 12-13 in the troop; 14-18 Varsity et Not just where you live. In the three states I've seen it used, the only way it was "successful" was if it was a Webelos 3 program. That's not what Boy Scouts is about.

My understanding was that the NSP concept was based upon research that showed Scouts who earned First Class in a year stay with the program. My argument against this was this: what does the data show about how active the troop is? I asked it in 1989 and continue to ask it, but get no response. However the more I read and hear about the LDS program and their 11 Year Old Boy Scout program, and how it is identical to the NSP concept, It is a logical assumption that LDS Scouts influenced the data back in the 1980s and National used their model for the NSP concept. The issue therefore with the data supporting First Class First Year and the NSP concept is flawed. One reason it's flawed is that LDS requires their youth to be Scouts. Another reason for the flaw is that LDS units have set plan that they repeat over and over with an adult in charge. Essentially Webelos 3 IMHO. As to the concept of the venture crew, now called venture patrol, the problem of how to keep older Scouts involved has been around since at least 1929 when Scouting Magazine published an article on this topic. And it's probably earlier. BSA over the years have tried a variety of things to keep them involved; Sea Scouts, Explorers, Air Explorers, Leadership Corps, Venture Crew/Patrol, and Venturing. My troop growing up used the Leadership Corps and operated the venture crew in the same matter. It was only 1999 when the confusion between Venture Crew/patrol and Venturing was explained to the troop ( this was after several of the guys attempted to receive their Bronze Awards) that the venture patrol turned into a Venturing crew. Sorry for the rant on NSPs, but they are a pet peeve of mine. I am assuming my troop was one of the "pilot troops" that experimented with the NSP concept in a traditional, boy-led troop back in 1986. It didn't work then, and has not worked in every troop that I've been in that tried it. Unless the patrol turned into Webelos 3. My current troop was initially a NSP since it was restarted. Unfortunately the SM and ASM at the time did a lot more for them that they should have IMHO. They are not use to being responsible and taking charge. And now we have new Scouters in the troop that are placing adult expectation on Boy Scouts who have just gotten rid of the yoke of adult control. And I am constantly arguing for the continuation of the current, mixed aged patrols. We have one Scouter, yes Gunship for those in the know, who is constantly telling the adults in the troop that we are doing it wrong since the book says we need to have 3 types of patrols. I keep reminding him that A) that concept has only been around since 1989 B) It has not worked in any troop that I've been in including ours C) In order for NSPs to work, we need to treat them like Cub Scouts still, which hurts them in the long run, and D) issues we have had when we did the 3 different types of patrols are no longer happening and adults are not getting involved, except the helicopter parents we are trying to break in.

1) As I stated, the caps are for emphasis, not shouting. I guess I could Bold or underline or even italicize for emphasis, but I admit I'm lazy and caps works easiest. 2) You may studies are all over the place, and yes they are. But look at the methodologies used. Some of the research uses methods that leave out factors. Heck even some of the pro single gender ones have questionable methodologies. But if you look at the studies for single gender as a whole, there are fewer problems with them overall than with coed studies. 3) If you want, I'll not only pull up my research from back in the day, but see what current studies show. 4) Considering both Surbaugh and the GSUSA both state that single gender environments are better, I would tend to believe them. Too bad Surbaugh is trying to do away with it. 5) Someone mentioned female SMs. I 'd say it goes back to Exploring going coed in the 1970s. At the meeting I was at on this topic, most of the ones there were Venturing folks, and were pro coed. Heck some of them even acknowledges that a partnership or parallel program would not work. 6) Those Same Venturers also admitted that while girls were in the minority, they were the majority in leadership.

GOODS NEW: Son is suppose to be contacting his SM to finish the last 2 MBs needed and his SM conference for Life. BOR is scheduled for the 28th. BAD NEWS: Why do I feel old ? (sorry couldn't resist)

We've have similar issues with my troop. At first it was not a problem. Now it is because it seems as if everyone is bringing their kids. At least when my youngest went camping in June, he was a Webelos. If it wasn't't for that fact, he would not have went. The parents I mentioned earlier brought their Tiger with them and let him lose. Yes he was all over, thankfully not in a canoe. Sad thing is that these parents are volunteers, and do not see what the problem is or how they are hurting their sons.

I am against allowing girls in Boy Scout troops for a variety of reasons, but in a nutshell BOYS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL MALE ENVIRONMENT JUST AS GIRLS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL GIRL ENVIRONMENT! (caps for emphasis). Heck Surbaugh evens mentions that in the jambo video thatis online. If it hurts the boys I'm against it. I am also againt partnering with or creating a parallel program because PEOPLE WILL IGNORE THE SEGREGATION AND GO COED ANYWAY. ( emphasis again) IF IT HURTS THE BOYS, I AM AGAINST IT! ( This time I'm shouting, mostly at the national folks who are shoving this down our throats.) I wish the GSUSA wold listen to their Total Available Youth and create a program that appeals to them.

BRAVO ZULU!

I've previously stated how one volunteer will create a "paper girls unit" and fully integrate the girls into the Boy Scout troop, irregardless of what national wants.

With all due respect @@RichardB, We all know that if a "Parallel Program" comes about, we will have "paper girl units" and they will be integrated with the boys. Heck I already have one parent waiting for the announcement so his daughter can join. From a discussion :Financially it's two expensive to have two sets of camping equipment and having two sets of summer camp and weekend camp outs. Plus add the time committement for the Scouters, i.e. having two sets of weekely meetings, camp outs, and summer camps. Full blown coed is the only way. YES FAMILY SCOUTING DOES IMPLY CUB SCOUT CAMPING AT THE BOY SCOUT LEVEL!!!!!!! My troop is currently dealing with former Cub parents and them treating their Boy Scouts like Cubs. Heck one mom was ticked off at me and left with her son when I told her that if her son didn't pitch his own tent and sleep in it, it would not count as a camp out for him. And we had some parents let their boys sneak into their tents TWICE now, and we told both the Scouts and parents they can not do that anymore. If BSA really means family camping instead of coed Scouting with the terms "making Scouting accessible to families," I will stay as long as my boys are willing to stay. But with all the interference these new parents caused this weekend, Oldest is ticked off and would probably leave or join the one troop in the district that has already stated they will NOT allow females to camp at all as it is against their CO's beliefs. Heck EVEN IF THEY DO NOT ALLOW ME TO SERVE AS A VOLUNTEER DUE TO MY FAITH, I WOULD LET MY BOYS JOIN THAT TROOP IF BOY SCOUTS BECOMES "FAMILY SCOUTS." (caps for emphasis.)

I've seen "Family Scouting" four times now. As a youth, my troop did a family trip. Originally not a family trip, the scouts planned for a year what they were going to do. At the last minute it became a family tip. THE MOMS SCREWED UP THE TRIP FOR US. That troop did not do another family camp out until everyone by myself and one ASM had left. It was OK, but it was not a true Scout trip. Last year my current troop did a trip that had one family show up. very skeptical, but it worked out OK. Problem was this: it opened the doors to families coming on trips. June's camp out had issues with the Scouts doing what they were suppose to do. One of the problems was the older Scouts not teaching the younger scouts how to set up tents properly. Nor did the new scouts read the instructions on set up. Guess what, two new scouts went to sleep with their moms and dads when it was raining and they started getting wet. fast forward to this weekend. I must not have gotten the memo that this was going to be a family camp out because we had family members showing up left and right. SPL and ASMs walked around to make sure tents were set up properly. New parents were complaining about the kids taking so long, missing supplies etc, Ironic thing was this same parent did not know how to set up their own tent, and required three Scouters to help her out! That night it started to rain, and with the first few drops hitting the tent, son rushes to their mom's tent. Then that mom, and husband when he got there, hovered around their kid the entire weekend. One ASM had a meeting with all the parents about the hovering and tenting issues. OK we understand the Scout with DOCUMENTED medical issues needing to sleep with dad ( and yes we realize that this Scout appears 100% normal and no one would supsect if known too.) but the parents need to STAY WAY. I talked to the Scouts about the same thing, and reminded them about camping in a tent you pitched needs to be done for advancement (that seems to the #1 thing the new Scouts, and their parents are interested in). later that day, one mom and her son show up. A few hours later she approaches me in a huff about is it true that they need to set up their own tent in order for the camp out to count, when I said "Yes, that's in the requirements" she has a fit and says " then what's the purpose of event coming out her?" I told her to work on skills and have fun. After an hour of complaining to another new parent, she and her son leave. Yes, I am not looking forward to "Family Scouts."

I do not know if the individual had his membership revoked or not, but I had to report a youth staffer who propositioned another youth staffer. Long story short, once it was reported, the camp director removed the individual from camp.

That's because it's a job for them and not a movement.

They are also limiting discussion. there is a very set Discussion guide that the folks need need to read verbatim and follow. Trying to go off topic and address real issues I and others see at my town hall was non fully possible. I do not know if some of those concerns were written in the notes the SE wrote, but the ones I was able to get out were not discussed or talked about. In defense of the Scout Executives, or at least mine, he was ticked off at how national is doing this. He stated he received the instructions for this the day before he left for jamboree. He did not appreciate that. He also stated that National wanted the council key 3 to do the presentation as well as reading the scripts verbatim. Regarding breaking points. I know mine is coming. I am having a hard enough time trying to keep the district afloat because we essentially do not have a committee. I been in communications with other Scouters, and even spent 30+ minutes at work on a call with one leader who is adamant that there will be no girls in his troop because of how his church has set up the program as an outreach ministry to get at risk youth off the streets.

Gee, I don't know. It did get Bill Hillcourt out of retirement to write the handbook I grew up with. Seriously, I think the decision to go coed is the worse one to date. But I am also a realist. If we are forced to go coed, and we are, then we need to do it correctly, otherwise the "sexist" and "bigoted" perception will continue to exist, and numerous packs and troops will ignore national and fully integrate, having a paper unit for the girls.

Maybe I am naive, but I would not lump the DEs into the same category as the CSE and SEs. They are sometimes in the dark like the rest of us. Heck I was the one that told the DE about the transgender membership change. But some of them too see this happening though. Mine told me how when he went to TX, the word "boy" was not used to describe membership, "families" was used in its place.

Agree with retiring Eagle if we go coed, but suggest Turkey instead of Phoenix. Maybe a Blue Jay since they are nest robbers.

I said it once, I'll say it again, the model being proposed, specifically Coed Cubs, Single Gender Scout, Coed Venturing WILL NOT WORK IN THE USA. (caps for emphasis not shouting.) Partnering with an organization will not work because existing ones do not want to work with us. Plus one of them, GSUSA, has a program that royally sucks from the amount of complaints I hear and read about. As for starting our own program, BSA did just that in 1910 with Campfire Girls. It went its own way then. But in today's PC world, you know that BSA creating a girl-only program would only raise the howls of 'Sexists" and the will reignite the raging membership wildfire that is not only distracting and hurting our Scouts, and but also waste valuable time and resources that could be used for other more important things.

I see it happening, and see it happening fast. We already have 3 girls chomping at the bit. And a 4th would have done it if she would not age out before it occurs. And I see the local Frontier Girls folding and merging. And I see it happening with every unit in my district save 2: the LDS troop, and the baptist Church which uses Scouting for their 'At-risk Youth" Ministry. They only want Boys b/c they are the ones they are trying to keep out of trouble.